This is one of those times "iamcanadian" which we talked about before where I think you are some guy with tin foil wrapped around his head. This is one of those times again
Does Canada need Civil-War to fix out its problems
- Thread starter Jersay
- Start date
So it seems to be reasonable that a majority of guys on the forums doesn't want civil-war.
I don't want civil-war, it is just interesting to see the understanding of the mindset of fellow Canadians and how to fix the country.
I want to work for the United Nations, and I am against war so I don't think it is fair to state that I am
promoting any war, I am just trying to see how the people of this forum feel. I don't see why people should kill themselves over a stupid argument or any kind of issue.
Quebec is still recognized as a part of Canada until recognized by the international community. Not only do they have to gain recognition from Canada but also the international community. So any unrest in Quebec would be Canada's unrest.
I don't want civil-war, it is just interesting to see the understanding of the mindset of fellow Canadians and how to fix the country.
I want to work for the United Nations, and I am against war so I don't think it is fair to state that I am
promoting any war.
promoting any war, I am just trying to see how the people of this forum feel. I don't see why people should kill themselves over a stupid argument or any kind of issue.
Quebec is still recognized as a part of Canada until recognized by the international community. Not only do they have to gain recognition from Canada but also the international community. So any unrest in Quebec would be Canada's unrest.
Anyone that thinks Canada can possibly ever have a civil war over Quebec separation has tin foil for brains. It is more likely that aliens from another planet will take over.
You have to look at the facts. Any country, you don't need to be a democracy, a dictatorship or a tyrant to know that any nation could be effected by different kinds of levels of violence down the road and it is stupid that one nation might not be effected by it because no one knows what is going to happen.
Just look at France, three weeks of violence that died out, they are a democracy, and the rioters tried to overthrow the government of France.
It could effect anyone.
This is easy to fix....
Let's look at the senario here:
Canada is a "Bi-Lingual" Country, thanks to Mr. A-Hole in the 70's.
"WE" are supposed to have English AND French on the majority of the federal and provincial road signs ETC.... EXCEPT for Quebec where it is illegal for ENGLISH to be on a sign... WTF is that?
I think the next vote the whole country should vote whether or not to kick Quebec OUT of Canada! We have a leader of a "seperatist party" on a National Debate.... HOW?!
If this was America these people would be tried for TREASON!
What makes them so "special"?
EVERYONE knows multiculturalism does NOT work.
This is Canada... speak ENGLISH!
There are a heck of a lot more Ukranian, German, Chinese (to name but a few) speaking people in this country than there are French.... you don't see THEM shoving their language down the throats of the rest of the country.
I say YES to the Civil War, but no blood shed, just justice.
I dare the leaders to have a "VOTE".
I would be the first one in line!
Git' R Done!
Let's look at the senario here:
Canada is a "Bi-Lingual" Country, thanks to Mr. A-Hole in the 70's.
"WE" are supposed to have English AND French on the majority of the federal and provincial road signs ETC.... EXCEPT for Quebec where it is illegal for ENGLISH to be on a sign... WTF is that?
I think the next vote the whole country should vote whether or not to kick Quebec OUT of Canada! We have a leader of a "seperatist party" on a National Debate.... HOW?!
If this was America these people would be tried for TREASON!
What makes them so "special"?
EVERYONE knows multiculturalism does NOT work.
This is Canada... speak ENGLISH!
There are a heck of a lot more Ukranian, German, Chinese (to name but a few) speaking people in this country than there are French.... you don't see THEM shoving their language down the throats of the rest of the country.
I say YES to the Civil War, but no blood shed, just justice.
I dare the leaders to have a "VOTE".
I would be the first one in line!
Git' R Done!
Jersay said:
Jersay
What "riot" are you talking about - do you mean the last terrorist attack on the people in Paris? That wasn't a government overthrow that was gang warfare to "terrorize" the people in a large city.
The Islamic fanatics residing in France were part of a resistance movement because France has been getting tough on all the new laws the French government is denying them. They aren't getting their way. Nor are they in Australia or Spain and the governments are standing firm they are going to live according to the laws of the host country.
Where are you getting these ideas from? I hope not from your "teachers". I wonder if you are really in a school that puts out this stuff.
What exactly would a civil war do for us? Either the ROC of Canada would lose and we'd end up having a hostile force as a neighbour or Quebec would be forced to remain in Canada which would only fuel more distain and resentment.
Do you really think the US civil war brought the two sides together? Internally there are still great divisions in the US between North and South.
Do you really think the US civil war brought the two sides together? Internally there are still great divisions in the US between North and South.
Re: RE: Does Canada need Civil-War to fix out its problems
The "divisions" are religious and to a lesser degree social in nature, both North and South refer to themselves as Americans, there are no issues of indentity involved or drawing lines of us and them. Quebeckers (those who wish to separate) don't even call themselves Canadians or want to have anything to do with Canada, vastly different in nature.
DasFX said:
The "divisions" are religious and to a lesser degree social in nature, both North and South refer to themselves as Americans, there are no issues of indentity involved or drawing lines of us and them. Quebeckers (those who wish to separate) don't even call themselves Canadians or want to have anything to do with Canada, vastly different in nature.
ITN
Thank you - your brevity and clarity were far better than I could have done - I was sitting there trying to write something without getting upset at that misinformation when you posted your message......
Thank you - your brevity and clarity were far better than I could have done - I was sitting there trying to write something without getting upset at that misinformation when you posted your message......
War is never the answer to anything. There is never a "need" for war, and only someone who has never experienced war first had can possibly put the words "need" and "war" together.
This does not mean there are not motivations for war, that's why they do happen.
As to the possiblity of Canada having a civil war? I think it's improbable.
If Canada can retain Quebec is a matter of if enough Quebequers feel that they have sufficient self-determiniation in Canadian federalism or if they feel that they are indeed unrepresented.
All this being said, I think there is general agreement among Canadians that we "need" change. The disputes are over what kind of change and how that change should be achieved.
Changes to senate, more positive constructive actions instead of apathy, and electoral reform are all good starting positions, and far more constructive than war.
This does not mean there are not motivations for war, that's why they do happen.
As to the possiblity of Canada having a civil war? I think it's improbable.
If Canada can retain Quebec is a matter of if enough Quebequers feel that they have sufficient self-determiniation in Canadian federalism or if they feel that they are indeed unrepresented.
All this being said, I think there is general agreement among Canadians that we "need" change. The disputes are over what kind of change and how that change should be achieved.
Changes to senate, more positive constructive actions instead of apathy, and electoral reform are all good starting positions, and far more constructive than war.
Re: RE: Does Canada need Civil-War to fix out its problems
You are comparing the America today, 140 years removed from the conflict with Canada of today when our comflict is at its height.
Immediately after the war in 1865, love and harmony wasn't the case. Many Confederates did not call themselves Americans and did not want anything to do with the Northern States.
If you travel a lot down in the Confederate States, you will still see divisions, although minor now what with internal migration and a shifted focus on external enemies.
I think not said:
You are comparing the America today, 140 years removed from the conflict with Canada of today when our comflict is at its height.
Immediately after the war in 1865, love and harmony wasn't the case. Many Confederates did not call themselves Americans and did not want anything to do with the Northern States.
If you travel a lot down in the Confederate States, you will still see divisions, although minor now what with internal migration and a shifted focus on external enemies.
If anything, Canada needs someone else to invade or have a war with us. That would elicit the greatest increase in nationalism.
Re: RE: Does Canada need Civil-War to fix out its problems
Uhm no, you made the claim of comparing Quebec with present day "great divisions", I simply corrected you. And I'll do it again, I travel a great deal all over the US, have been to all the states, the "great divisions" are religious in nature as I said.
Of course immediately AFTER the war there was animosity, however, nothing like that exists today, not even close and to suggest such a thing shows very little understanding of how Americans think of the "North and South". It wasn't a war of division (although thats what sparked it), it was a war of unification. Now there are people in the South that look upon us in the North and wonder about our "lifestyle" but never misinterpret that meaning "us and them". We're all Americans, I can't make it any clearer for you than that.
DasFX said:
i think not said:
DasFX said:
Uhm no, you made the claim of comparing Quebec with present day "great divisions", I simply corrected you. And I'll do it again, I travel a great deal all over the US, have been to all the states, the "great divisions" are religious in nature as I said.
Of course immediately AFTER the war there was animosity, however, nothing like that exists today, not even close and to suggest such a thing shows very little understanding of how Americans think of the "North and South". It wasn't a war of division (although thats what sparked it), it was a war of unification. Now there are people in the South that look upon us in the North and wonder about our "lifestyle" but never misinterpret that meaning "us and them". We're all Americans, I can't make it any clearer for you than that.
So a marginalized people, in this case the muslim people youth of France is a terrorist gang that just started a revolt to because of of Al Qaida and terrorism. Don't be rediculous, it was because the French government and the French people marginalized these people, but them in the low-end jobs that they wanted to do and harassed them through language, through jobs and through the police.
And in Australia, the violence started because of some f-ing racist white shit-bags started messing with Muslim men and women from Lebanese descendent. Has nothing to do with terrorism.
The kids who started the riots in France were not fanatics at all. If they were, you would have seen a ton of more violence, and you would have had European Terrorist groups, mainly Muslim helping them.
And in Australia, the violence started because of some f-ing racist white shit-bags started messing with Muslim men and women from Lebanese descendent. Has nothing to do with terrorism.
Well, to be fair. There was a lot of violence on both sides, Jersay. Members of a lebanese Gang did stab and kill two caucasian life-guards who told them to settle down. The blame can be laid on BOTH racist skin-heads and irresponsible, violent lebanese youths. Not just one or the other.
The kids who started the riots in France were not fanatics at all. If they were, you would have seen a ton of more violence, and you would have had European Terrorist groups, mainly Muslim helping them.
I agree there. The French riots were more an explosion of racial tensions. More like the Rodney King riots in LA than an organized terrorist attack.
Well, to be fair. There was a lot of violence on both sides, Jersay. Members of a lebanese Gang did stab and kill two caucasian life-guards who told them to settle down. The blame can be laid on BOTH racist skin-heads and irresponsible, violent lebanese youths. Not just one or the other.
The kids who started the riots in France were not fanatics at all. If they were, you would have seen a ton of more violence, and you would have had European Terrorist groups, mainly Muslim helping them.
I agree there. The French riots were more an explosion of racial tensions. More like the Rodney King riots in LA than an organized terrorist attack.